Unable to compete, the Cupertino company claims that Google and Samsung stole features from Siri

Given that the massive Galaxy S IV doesn't look too much like the much smaller 4-inch iPhone 5, Apple Inc. (AAPL) is having to turn to new and creative routes to try to convince federal judges and juries to ban its competitor’s flagship product.

Thus it is perhaps expected that Apple would be return to its favorite tactic -- looking to troll Samsung in court.

The Samsung Galaxy S IV

Its latest accusation is that Google Inc.’s (GOOG) Android "Google Now" service violates five invention claims that Apple has patented, with respect to its Siri voice search/assistant that it co-designed with Nuance Communications Inc. (NUAN).

But wait, you say, what could patents filed at least four years before Siri was released (or ten or more years in most cases) have to do with Siri or Google Now? And what in the world do graphical user interface patents (the latter two patents from the 90s) have to do with voice search?

II. Apple Looks to Use Ambiguous Decade-Old Patents Against Samsung

Apple contends that the trio of initial patents -- which cover interaction with ambiguous data constructs -- can be applied to Siri, Google Now, (or likely most other pieces of software). And Apple says its equally ambiguous UI "inventions" are fair game, as Google Now is activated by an on-screen button at times, replacing the previous "Android Quick Search Box".

According to a filing obtained by Florian Mueller, an anti-Google blogger paid by Google's legal rivals, Apple writes, "The Galaxy S4 product practices many of the same claims already asserted by Apple… in the same way as the already-accused Samsung devices."

Unable to compete, Apple is helping the courts lend it a helping hand in its war against Samsung. [Image Source: Cult of Mac]

quote: And FireWire, while not exclusive to Macs, never made a dent in a market that was already using USB.

This was due to Apple's initial licensing policy. It was (IIRC) a minimum of $5,000 for a base license plus $1.00 for each connector. This meant that if you wanted to build a Firewire cable you had to pay Apple $2.00 (two connectors on the cable) plus the initial fee. Back in 1990 when Firewire started that was a truly asinine fee -- and still would be today!

quote: Most people don't understand Apple's reluctance to enhance currently used technology like everyone else does. My new PC has USB 3 ports, which accept my USB 1 and 2 devices, no problem. It also has SATA 3, which accept SATA 1 and 2. Apple doesn't believe in backwards compatibility, even with its own technology.

Actually, even Firewire was updated. It started out in 1990 as a link that topped out at 50 Mbps. The next generation jumped to 400 Mbps maximum -- with the same connector. The IEEE committee made the move to a different connector when they went to the 800/1600 Mbps version even thought they kept that connector when they finally went to 3200 Mbps over copper. (And Just FYI, Firewire did 3200 Mbps over copper many, many years ago -- shortly after it was picked up as an IEEE standard.) You can go back even further with things like NUBUS being updated and backwardly compatible. Even the 30 pin connector transport stream for the iDevices got updated along the way, but most people (especially the users) never noticed.

The problem is that when Apple makes a jump from one connector to another it either has no apparent reason to do so or does an extremely poor job in explaining to users why they've made the change.

quote: As to user replaceable hardware, Apple was among the first companies to start the trend of being unable to do your own upgrades or repairs.

Apple has long been a proponent of the computer being an appliance. The original Mac back in 1984 was not designed to be opened or modified in any way. You could add an extra external 400 kB floppy drive, but other than that it was not modifiable. Hell, it didn't even come with an extended keyboard! So the "trend" at Apple started 30 years ago. No one should be surprised that the latest Apple products are not designed to be modified by end users. If your taste (like mine) is to have a product that is configurable by the end user then stay away from certain Apple products.

Apple extending this 30+ year design philosophy to iDevices should be pretty obvious to anyone who has even given a glance to Apple over the years. If you like Apple's philosophy, buy their stuff. If you don't, then don't.

quote: As to that trade off, that's BS. Other companies have no problem creating removable batteries in thin phones. Look at Samsung's Galaxy S4.

It's not 100% BS. A removable battery inherently weights more or has lower capacity. The removable cover on the phone inherently weighs more or is less rigid. There are tradeoffs. Are those tradeoffs enough to cause you to buy one phone over the other? That's a matter of personal choice.

quote: The problem is that when Apple makes a jump from one connector to another it either has no apparent reason to do so or does an extremely poor job in explaining to users why they've made the change.

Since Apple started making devices with the iPod in 2001 it has used two proprietary cable connectors. The first, the 30 pinn connector, was introduced in 2003 and was used for nine years, which is a very long time in the life cycles of technology especially in that of mobile devices. It's replacement was announced in 2012 and is faster and far more user friendly that it's predecessor. It is better than USB because it can carry a larger charging current than thin USB connectors and can be inserted either way round. How many times a day do you try to plug a USB connector in the wrong way round? Like the thirty pin connector the new Lightening connector will have been designed for a long product cycle and for the sorts of devices Apple are planning for several years ahead.

By the way I think that it is telling that it is mostly people who do not use Apple products and who dislike Apple that keep harping on about this topic, shedding crocodile tears for Apple customers that they regularly mock and disparage in a show of cheap and tawdry hypocrisy. Apple customers just keep buying their products.

quote: Apple has long been a proponent of the computer being an appliance.

That's right and for a long time this did not gel with a computing device market that was dominated by corporate PC purchases of generic PCs assembled by loose alliances of supply chain clusters. This model was created to offer cheap bulk purchases to corporate buyers but it had the added side effect of allowing anyone to open up their PCs and tinker with them. This ability to tinker was great for a minority of user but the inherent instability and complexity of a production model that made the end user often function as the system integrator and incompatibility trouble shooter was all too often hellish for most consumers. Most consumer went along with this model because they wanted compatibility with their work IT and because it delivered cheap hardware. But they didn't like it.

One of the reasons that Apple has flourished and grown in the post PC computer device markets is because it's commitment to making finished, complete, integrated and stable products wrapped in pleasing designs and with a premium product feel about them is far more suited to the mass electronic markets and it is only very recently that a mass market has developed for small but very powerful computing devices bought and sold like consumer electronic durables. This the kind of mass market that is perfectly suited to Apple strengths, hence it's success, and completely incompatible with the strengths of the old PC makers, hence their failures.